"The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep," Obama cautioned. Young and charismatic but with little experience on the national level, Obama smashed through racial barriers and easily defeated ...

<quoted text>Einstein? Who knows?Washington? A Mason puts their trust in God.Who did Washington rape? What did he steal? Where did the mass murder Washington commit occur?White people did not enslave the African. Africans enslaved the African. Eurpoeans were merely the purchasers, and ultimaely the race that ended slavery... among themselves and their civilization. Even today, slavery is still practiced in Africa and the Arab world.Christ would never assume that any living human was in any way beneath him.Get an education, dufus.

So I'm the uneducated one yet you dont know this country is this country because your forefathers made carnage of the pre existing indian population & if you did tort research you would know the difference in christianity & the god the freemasons serve. I guess in baby blue eyes it want slavery because they actually paid for human service & enforced it through beatings & killings! Who did they rap? Do I really gotta answer this one man? You claim to be educated, you tell me! The 2nd to last sentence on your post proves my point. In other words, you prooved yourself wrong & to argue in opposition to what I'm saying proves just how ignorant you really are butt queef!

<quoted text>You can't even define "assault weapon", dufus.Now, show us in the Constitution where it defines two sets of rights: one for the citizens in the ruling elite; and another set of rights for the second-class citizens not included in the ruling elite.Got a problem there, don't you, dufus....

Uh-oh, Dweeb the stupid is back.

Early release?? Got a couple of days chopped off your jailtime??

Once again, you fail to understand the heart of the Constitution.

It means whatever the Supreme Court says it means at any given point in history.

<quoted text>It's not a scam, millions depend on it and will depend on it. It does need to be fine tuned for the future, however.I believe Obama's chumps Simpson/Bowles had some good ideas Obama ignored.They must feel so used.

Oh yes it is and proven in 1960 and the Conservatives were right not to have nothing to do with it.

You Have NO Right to Social Security

Social Security advocates defend this massive program as an inalienable entitlement. The checks will be in the mail, they say, come Hell or high water.

* In his response to President Bush's 2005 State of the Union address, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada called Social Security "the guaranteed benefit that Americans have earned."1

* Franklin Delano Roosevelt said Social Security revenues "are collected in the form of taxes... held by the government solely for the benefit of the worker in his old age." Roosevelt added: "We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral and political right to collect their pensions."2

* The government reinforces this belief by calling Social Security taxes "contributions" to FICA, the Federal Insurance Contributions Act.3 Americans actually have no property rights to their Social Security "contributions." Unlike private pension funds, which actually belong to workers, Americans have no legal claim on the money Uncle Sam theoretically salts away for their golden years.

* The U.S. Supreme Court decided this in 1960 in the case of Fleming v. Nestor. Bulgarian immigrant Ephram Nestor was deported in 1956 for being a Communist in the 1930s. After Congress prohibited Social Security benefits for deportees in 1954, Nestor sued. He claimed title to his FICA tax payments between 1936 and 1955, the year he retired. The Supreme Court disagreed: "To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of 'accrued property rights' would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever-changing conditions which it demands."4

* The Court added: "It is apparent that the non-contractual interest of an employee covered by the [Social Security] Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments."5

* This decision reflected the Court's precedent in Helvering v. Davis. In 1937, it ruled: "The proceeds of both the employee and employer [Social Security] taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way."6

* Various congresses and presidents have raised Social Security taxes at least 40 times since the program commenced in 1935. Also, the retirement age currently is creeping toward 67. Such steps deprive Americans of their retirement assets. None of this should be surprising. Social Security funds do not belong to individual workers and entrepreneurs. This money is the property of Washington politicians and they may do with it whatever they please.

<quoted text>It's not a scam, millions depend on it and will depend on it. It does need to be fine tuned for the future, however.I believe Obama's chumps Simpson/Bowles had some good ideas Obama ignored.They must feel so used.

Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme operated by the Federal Government.

Is There a Right to Social Security?

By Michael D. Tanner

November 25, 1998

You worked hard your whole life and paid thousands of dollars in Social Security taxes. Now it’s time to retire. You’re legally entitled to Social Security benefits, right? Wrong. There is no legal right to Social Security, and that is one of the considerations that may decide the coming debate over Social Security reform.

Many people believe that Social Security is an “earned right.” That is, they think that because they have paid Social Security taxes, they are entitled to receive Social Security benefits. The government encourages that belief by referring to Social Security taxes as “contributions,” as in the Federal Insurance Contribution Act. However, in the 1960 case of Fleming v. Nestor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that workers have no legally binding contractual rights to their Social Security benefits, and that those benefits can be cut or even eliminated at any time.

One of the most enduring myths of Social Security is that a worker has a legal right to his Social Security benefits. Many workers assume that, if they pay Social Security taxes into the system, they have some sort of legal guarantee to the system’s benefits. The truth is exactly the opposite. It has long been law that there is no legal right to Social Security. In two important cases, Helvering v. Davis and Flemming v. Nestor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Social Security taxes are simply taxes and convey no property or contractual rights to Social Security benefits.

As a result, a worker’s retirement security is entirely dependent on the political decisions of the president and Congress. Benefits may be reduced or even eliminated at any time. Given the program’s looming financial crisis, benefit cutbacks are increasingly likely. Therefore, the entirely political nature of Social Security places workers’ retirement security at considerable risk. Indeed, Congress has already arbitrarily reduced Social Security benefits of some groups of workers. Moreover, because Social Security benefits are not a worker’s property, they are not inheritable.

In contrast, a privatized Social Security system, based on individual accounts, would provide workers with the benefits and the safeguards of true ownership.

<quoted text>Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme operated by the Federal Government.Is There a Right to Social Security?By Michael D. TannerNovember 25, 1998You worked hard your whole life and paid thousands of dollars in Social Security taxes. Now it’s time to retire. You’re legally entitled to Social Security benefits, right? Wrong. There is no legal right to Social Security, and that is one of the considerations that may decide the coming debate over Social Security reform.Many people believe that Social Security is an “earned right.” That is, they think that because they have paid Social Security taxes, they are entitled to receive Social Security benefits. The government encourages that belief by referring to Social Security taxes as “contributions,” as in the Federal Insurance Contribution Act. However, in the 1960 case of Fleming v. Nestor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that workers have no legally binding contractual rights to their Social Security benefits, and that those benefits can be cut or even eliminated at any time.http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/i...Property Rights: The Hidden Issue of Social Security ReformOne of the most enduring myths of Social Security is that a worker has a legal right to his Social Security benefits. Many workers assume that, if they pay Social Security taxes into the system, they have some sort of legal guarantee to the system’s benefits. The truth is exactly the opposite. It has long been law that there is no legal right to Social Security. In two important cases, Helvering v. Davis and Flemming v. Nestor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Social Security taxes are simply taxes and convey no property or contractual rights to Social Security benefits.As a result, a worker’s retirement security is entirely dependent on the political decisions of the president and Congress. Benefits may be reduced or even eliminated at any time. Given the program’s looming financial crisis, benefit cutbacks are increasingly likely. Therefore, the entirely political nature of Social Security places workers’ retirement security at considerable risk. Indeed, Congress has already arbitrarily reduced Social Security benefits of some groups of workers. Moreover, because Social Security benefits are not a worker’s property, they are not inheritable.In contrast, a privatized Social Security system, based on individual accounts, would provide workers with the benefits and the safeguards of true ownership.http://www.cato.org/publications/social-secur...

IT WOULD BE NICE IF YOU DIDNT WRITE A BOOK EVERY TIME YOU POST A COMMENT.Thank you !

<quoted text>Uh-oh, Dweeb the stupid is back.Early release?? Got a couple of days chopped off your jailtime??Once again, you fail to understand the heart of the Constitution.It means whatever the Supreme Court says it means at any given point in history.That's where you nitwits have a problem.Obama will likely get two Supreme nominees.The Second Amendment can be re-examined and redefined as necessary.Count on it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.